C2004/2090, Transcript of Proceedings [2004] AIRCTrans 1468 (19 April 2004)

AUSCRIPT PTY LTD
ABN 76 082 664 220

Level 6, 114-120 Castlereagh St SYDNEY NSW 2000
PO Box A2405 SYDNEY SOUTH NSW 1235
Tel:[phone] Fax:[phone]

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

O/N 10474

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

COMMISSIONER CARGILL

C2004/2090

FOOD PRESERVERS AWARD 2000

Application under section 113 of the Act
by Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering,
Printing and Kindred Industrial Union to
vary the above award re casuals

C2004/2091

CONFECTIONERS AWARD 2002

Application under section 13 of the Act
by Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering,
Printing and Kindred Industries Union to
vary the above award re casuals

SYDNEY

10.03 AM, TUESDAY, 6 APRIL 2004

Continued from 13.3.04

PN21

THE COMMISSIONER: I think there might be some changes in appearances today so maybe I could take those first please. Starting with you Mr McCauley.

PN22

MR T. McCAULEY: Commissioner I appear for the AMWU.

PN23

MS. N. STREET: I appear for the Australian Industry Group.

PN24

MR J. CORLETT: Solicitor, with your leave Commissioner, I appear on behalf of the respondent members of the Australian Business Industrial.

PN25

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you Mr Corlett. I presume that for today's purpose at least there is no objection to Mr Corlett being given leave. In that case leave is granted. Well both matters were listed for report back today. I think in large part the employer organisations were to go away and formulate whether or not there were going to be objections to the applications and then people were going to perhaps have discussions with the union. I'm not sure exactly what happens there so I'm just wondering whether it is best for either Ms Street or Mr Corlett to let me know what's happened, or are you across it all Mr McCauley and can tell me?

PN26

MR McCAULEY: I can give you my understanding of what the situation is. I've had some discussions with AIG and ABI and my understanding is they are both in a situation of having discussions with their members. With that in mind we understand that they might require some time to come to a conclusion as to whether they are objecting or consenting to each part of the variations proposed. With that in mind we would still like to set down some sort of program for dates for a hearing just so that this, in due course, after they have had some time to consult with their members, just so that these matters don't progress months and months down the track with further with further reports back ad infinitum.

PN27

THE COMMISSIONER: What about conciliation?

PN28

MR McCAULEY: Well to the extent that would lead to - we are open to that however it does depend on what the employees come back with obviously.

PN29

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, but I was wondering whether in that program there could be some conciliation because I know from my experience with these matters, even where they are contested, is that sometimes it is possible to come up with some conciliated result rather than have to put everybody to a full blown hearing.

PN30

MR McCAULEY: I understand Commissioner. There may be some potential for conciliation. However, the nature of the applications for the variations sought, I don't know how much room we have to move but we are open to some period for conciliation.

PN31

THE COMMISSIONER: Ms Street?

PN32

MS STREET: Australian Industry Group still opposes the variation in its current form. We have established a working party with our members to discuss some of the issues they have raised. We do envisage further discussions with the AMWU and ..... further report back in about four weeks time.

PN33

THE COMMISSIONER: So you'd rather a report back rather than a program, is that what you're saying?

PN34

MS STREET: If the Commission pleases.

PN35

THE COMMISSIONER: Can I just ask in relation to you saying you are opposing the applications, that's both the Food Preservers and the Confectioners?

PN36

MS STREET: That's correct Commissioner

PN37

THE COMMISSIONER: So it is not just the quantum of the increase that is the issue, as I understand the Confectioners already has the 25 percent it is just a case of changing the terms?

PN38

MS STREET: That's right Commissioner, it was more the conversion to - - -

PN39

THE COMMISSIONER: Which I gather is along the lines of the Metters conversion. We needn't go into the detail, that's all right. I just wanted to check you are opposing at that stage but you are having discussions with your members.

PN40

MS STREET: That's correct.

PN41

THE COMMISSIONER: Right, yes Mr Corlett?

PN42

MR CORLETT: Yes Commissioner, as with last time Australian Business Industrial hasn't got its response yet. It sought the input of members and there has been some negative response from members in relation to the applications. What we are seeking I suppose is to ascertain ABIs position in the next few weeks in order to determine whether it opposes the claim or whether it opposes parts of the claim or whether it actually does consent to the claim being accepted by the Commission. So in line with Ms Street's suggestion of four weeks I would be agreeable to report back in four weeks time.

PN43

THE COMMISSIONER: Is there anything you want to put further Mr McCauley, about that? I mean you want the matter programmed and I understand why you do rather than it going on on the never never. By the same token I'm a little reluctant to actually fix firm programming dates simply because I think it has a bit of a negative impact on people in some respects because it is like well listen we have got the dates planned so we might as well go all out, you know, for a contested hearing. My preference would be to perhaps have a report back at that time however on the basis that I want a firm view, and I mean that, at that point so that the employer parties take this on board. I want a firm view at that point from the employer parties as to whether or nor they are opposing the applications for either of them. Whether or not that opposition is in full, or in part, or etcetera and what I think would be useful would be maybe if we could - I mean obviously if there is consent that's wonderful, we don't need to worry about anything further.

PN44

If, depending upon the nature of that objection, I think some conciliation would be useful because as I say I have found in some previous matters that sometimes, particularly where it is not total objection, that maybe some conciliation can assist parties in coming up with some agreed position. But also on the basis that obviously if it doesn't resolve then it will go on for a full hearing and bear in mind that dates will be set then for the usual exchange etcetera. Can I also ask just in relation in this, and this really is I suppose to your side of the table, the employers side, the Food Preservers Award clearly is - perhaps I should ask Mr McCauley if he wants to put anything against this first. I would take it that the Food Preservers application is above the safety net. You are not going to argue that it is not, are you?

PN45

MR McCAULEY: In terms of having it referred to the President for referral for the Full Bench we wouldn't oppose that course of action.

PN46

THE COMMISSIONER: Right that's certainly in relation to the Food Preservers. What I suppose I really need to know is there anything that anyone wants to put in relation to the Confectioners Award as to whether or not it is an application above the safety net. What I'm getting at is I'll have to refer this file off at some point to the President. The question is do I also need to refer the Confectioners Award application. It is not as clear because it doesn't involve an increase in the loading. Maybe if I could perhaps ask you all to take that on board and maybe when we have the next report back you could indicate your views as to whether or not that file needs to be referred off under principle 10 of the principles. So if you could just give some thought to that.

PN47

So we'll look for a report back in about a month. Do you think that would be enough Mr Corlett?

PN48

MS STREET: Yes Commissioner.

PN49

THE COMMISSIONER: Right, but on the basis that as I say I would want a firm view from you at that point as to what your position is, so that's about the beginning of May isn't it?.

PN50

MR McCAULEY: The week commencing the 3rd.

PN51

THE COMMISSIONER: Now this is really just for the purpose of report back isn't it, at that point, so we shouldn't need a long period of time? The 5th is probably the best day that week for me. Does the 5th suit people? Maybe it would be easier, is there any problem if we go off the record to discuss that? Okay we will just go off.

OFF THE RECORD

RESUMED [10.14am]

PN52

THE COMMISSIONER: There's been some discussion off the record between the parties and myself about further dates and it has been agreed that the matters both be listed for report back at 2.00 pm on 4 May here in Sydney. If there is nothing further the matter is adjourned until that date. Thank you.

ADJOURNED UNTIL TUESDAY, 4 MAY 2004 [10.15am]